Palestinian children protest against Donald Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Photograph: APAImages/Rex/Shutterstock

The US administration’s decision to move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and, in so doing, to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is the latest in a series of series of geopolitical decisions relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If this decision is not opposed clearly and resolutely, the prospect of an end to that conflict will continue to recede.

The resurgence of violence triggered by the US decision, along with international reactions to it, show that all actors involved need to readdress certain aspects of the conflict. For a number of decades the international community has been discussing the possibility of a two-state solution – although this prompts the question: where is this second state?

Israel-Palestine: the real reason there’s still no peace

Read more

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict differs from other conflicts that have been waged throughout human history. In this case, the clash is not between two nations or states but between two peoples that are equally insistent on their right to the same small piece of land and are equally determined to live on it – preferably without the other. There can be no military or purely political solution to the conflict; there has to be a human solution.

The facts of the conflict are well known and do not need to be set out in detail here. The decision in 1947 to split Palestine was rejected by the entire Arab world at the time. The decision, or the response to it, may have been a mistake, but from a Palestinian perspective it was a disaster. Nonetheless, the decision had been taken and we all had to learn to live with the repercussions. Palestinians have long since relinquished their claim to the whole of Palestine and acquiesced to the division of the territory. Israel, on the other hand, continues to build illegal settlements on Palestinian land, thus revealing a lack of readiness to emulate the Palestinian approach.

There is a measure of symmetry to some aspects of the conflict, while other aspects are asymmetrical: Israel is already a state, a very powerful state, and as such has to bear a larger part of the responsibility.

No one any longer seriously questions Israel’s right to exist, yet the world is split on the broader Israel issue. On the one hand there are nations that feel responsible for the cruel treatment of the Jews in Europe and we can only be thankful that this sense of responsibility continues today. On the other hand there are still people who deny the Holocaust, an attitude that nourishes some of the more extreme groups in the Arab world and gives the Jewish population good reason to despair. And yet, notwithstanding all the justifiable criticism of Palestinian hostility towards Israel, the criticism should not be seen as a continuation of European antisemitism.

In the light of the unilateral decision taken by the US, I issue the following appeal to the rest of the world: acknowledge Palestine as a sovereign state just as you have acknowledged the statehood of Israel. No compromise can be expected between two peoples – or even two people – who do not acknowledge each other’s existence. For a two-state solution to be arrived at, we first need to have two states, and the current situation does not reflect this. Palestine has been occupied for 50 years and the Palestinians cannot be expected to enter into negotiations in the present circumstances. All nations seriously interested in a two-state solution must recognise Palestine as a sovereign state and simultaneously call for serious talks to begin at once.

Play Video

1:57

'It is time to officially recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,' says Trump – video

Unilateral measures such as the American decision can only make the situation worse as they offer false hope to one side and add to the other side’s despair. They can only be viewed as provocative. Were it not for the history of the last 70 years, a bi-national state might have been a conceivable option. But the hesitation on both sides has to be seen for what it is: the two-state solution is the only feasible option – and two autonomous states are a prerequisite for achieving this. Two states existing side-by-side on an equal footing would be the only way to guarantee fairness for the Palestinians and security for Israel.

In the matter of Jerusalem, the solution appears logical: Jerusalem is as sacred a city to Jews as it is to Muslims and Christians. As part of a two-state solution, I see no problem with having West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.

So I appeal to all major nations that have not yet recognised Palestine as a sovereign state to do so now and to pledge at the same time to open negotiations on border delineation and other essential matters. Far from representing an anti-Israeli measure, this would be a step towards a solution acceptable to both sides. It is quite clear that both peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, will have to be equally desirous of peace. No solution can be foisted on the parties from outside. Which is why I will go a step further and call on the nations of Israel and Palestine to declare unequivocally that they have had enough of this decades-long conflict and yearn for peace at last.